Next Article in Journal
Teacher Candidates’ Perceptions of Peer and Instructor Feedback Through Video Annotations: Whose Advice Do They Prefer?
Previous Article in Journal
Post-COVID-19 Student and Faculty Perceptions of Online Computing Labs: Better Targeted, Better Perceptions, but Still Need Improvement
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Education Sciences
Volume 14
Issue 12
10.3390/educsci14121360
education-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Performance and Self-Representation of Socioemotional Competencies in Preschool Children: Implication for Adaptive Developmental Outcome

by
Francesca Sangiuliano Intra
1,
Livia Taverna
1,*,
Roberta Maria Incardona
2,3,
Marta Tremolada
2,3,
Alberto Amadori
1,
Giulia Prestera
1 and
Antonella Brighi
1
1
Faculty of Education, Free University of Bolzano-Bozen, 39100 Bolzano, Italy
2
Department of Developmental and Socialization Psychology, University of Padua, 35122 Padova, Italy
3
Department of Woman’s and Child’s Health, University of Padua, 35122 Padova, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14(12), 1360; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14121360
Submission received: 21 October 2024 / Revised: 29 November 2024 / Accepted: 7 December 2024 / Published: 12 December 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Early Childhood Education)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Developing socioemotional competence in preschool children is essential to their growth. Numerous studies have emphasized the importance of socioemotional skills in early childhood, documenting distinct patterns in socioemotional growth and identifying distinct developmental patterns that suggest gender and self-awareness can influence developmental trajectories in this domain. This study investigates the role of gender in the relationship between children’s self-representation and socioemotional performance-based outcomes, measured through objective and quantifiable assessments of their abilities and behaviors. A sample of 145 preschool children was assessed using the Test of Emotion Comprehension and the Berkeley Puppet Interview. Results indicate no significant gender or age differences in Test of Emotion Comprehension scores, while the Berkeley Puppet Interview revealed notable gender differences across all the latent socioemotional dimensions. These findings underscore the importance of considering gender and integrating self-representation into educational programs to support adaptive development and promote psychological well-being.

1. Introduction

Socioemotional competence in preschool children plays a crucial role in their overall growth, fostering sustainable development, decision-making, concern for the public good, creativity, self-esteem, and self-awareness [1,2,3]. One of the key aspects of socioemotional development is the ability to manage and regulate emotions effectively and having an adequate self-representation of such competencies. In fact, preschool children who possess these skills are more likely to exhibit positive behaviors, such as empathy, kindness, and cooperation [4,5]. Moreover, the preschool age is a crucial period for developing self-representation and emotional awareness, considering that children actively construct their identities and sense of self about the world around them. Accordingly, the link between emotional competencies and social development has been consistently supported in the preschool years [6]. Studies have shown that emotion regulation and self-regulation strategies significantly develop during preschool years [7,8], and the relationship between resilience and emotional socialization is fundamental to supporting empathy and prosocial behaviors across early childhood [9].
Due to emotion regulation and emotional knowledge, defined as critical components of emotional competencies, children learn how to respond emotionally according to their understanding of emotions and how those emotions are expressed in relationships with others, negotiating interpersonal interactions, and regulating their emotional experiences [1,5]. Their emotional knowledge involves the capacity to identify, comprehend, and categorize emotions from a range of cues, including facial, behavioral, and social expressions [10]. In addition to acquiring emotional knowledge, which entails a conceptual understanding of the emotional aspects of relationships and behaviors, children’s emotion regulation refers to their capacity to monitor, assess, and adjust their emotional responses. This competence is essential to reaching positive and adaptive developmental outcomes [11,12]. In this perspective, the European governmental policy concerning socioemotional education in kindergarten has evolved significantly in recent years, reflecting a growing recognition of the critical role that early childhood education plays in shaping children’s overall development. In particular, European policies have increasingly emphasized inclusive education and the need for early interventions to address behavioral issues and support socioemotional development, thereby reducing inequalities in educational outcomes. This also aligns with broader EU objectives for social sustainability that prioritize social cohesion and the well-being of children as essential components of educational policy [13,14]. Moreover, in the study provided by Cavioni and colleagues (2024), the critical role of Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) in educational environments has been addressed, focusing on the alignment between the CASEL framework and global policy initiatives. Central to the research is the examination of two prominent European policies—the WHO Health Promoting Schools (HPS) initiative and the OECD Study on Social and Emotional Skills (SSES)—which emphasize the integration of social and emotional competencies in school settings. The first framework adopts a global approach, addressing physical, mental, and social well-being through its Whole-School Approach, which fosters collaboration among schools, families, and communities. Complementing this, the OECD SSES provides a robust assessment framework for evaluating socioemotional skills, grounded in the Big Five personality model, and offers empirical insights from multi-national studies. By connecting these policies to CASEL’s core SEL competencies, namely self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relationship skills, and responsible decision-making, it emerges the pivotal role that such dimensions have in children’s growth [15].
Accordingly, several critical connections highlight the association between emotional competence performance and emotional awareness, at first, their joint action in recognizing and comprehending one’s emotions and producing appropriate behaviors on this base [16]. Moreover, emotional awareness serves as a cornerstone for cultivating social skills, which represent a crucial field of application of emotional competence. Accordingly, positive self-representations are closely linked to higher socioemotional competence levels, as children with a positive self-concept tend to exhibit more empathy, prosocial behaviors, and emotional regulation skills [17,18]. These achievements can only be reached through regular and consistent exposure to experiences that allow children to recognize, understand, and express their emotions appropriately. Such experiences help them establish a sense of self and differentiate their emotions from those of others, enabling them to interact positively with their peers and other individuals in their social environment awareness [5]. Additionally, the formation of personal identity in preschoolers is influenced by the child’s interaction and identification with parents and the internalized image of self [19]. Moreover, it has been found that both teacher–child closeness and conflict were significantly related to low-income preschoolers’ socioemotional adjustment (i.e., emotional symptoms, peer problems, conduct problems, and prosocial behaviors) in expected directions [20]. Age differences in emotion and behavior choices have also been observed, with younger preschoolers being more prone to choose happy responses, whereas older preschoolers choose more adaptive behavior responses [4].
The exploration of gender differences in socioemotional skills development reveals a nuanced landscape where some studies indicate no significant differences between genders [21,22]. Some studies propose that while gender identities can influence social skills, the actual differences in socioemotional skills may be minimal or context-dependent [23,24].
Moreover, Kamphorst et al. found that while motor skills contribute to socioemotional adjustment, the impact did not significantly differ between boys and girls, indicating that both genders benefit similarly from early developmental opportunities [23]. This aligns with findings by Gordo et al., who discuss the role of parental competence in fostering socioemotional adjustment in children, noting that the effects are not significantly moderated by the child’s gender [25]. However, other evidence pointed out that girls tend to have stronger social and emotional skills, displaying greater empathy and cooperation compared to boys, who experience higher levels of social anxiety [26]. Accordingly, it has been shown that discrepancies emerge in the distribution of different gender roles among preschool children and that these gender roles are constantly developing [27]. Other evidence pointed out that children’s discussion of emotion may be more predictive of their socioemotional development once they have internalized the narrative structure of these conversations and become more involved in shaping the course of these conversations, which typically does not happen until late in the preschool years [28]. Moreover, Hilliard and Liben have demonstrated that increasing gender salience led to increased stereotypes in younger children, indicating that gender differences in socioemotional skills may emerge early in development [29]. Additionally, it has been suggested that during the preschool years, children’s development of skills like language and communication, executive functions, and socioemotional comprehension undergo an essential growth that plays a critical role in this respect [30].
Scientific data and findings on gender differences in preschoolers reveal distinct patterns in socioemotional development and self-awareness. Concerning self-awareness, girls tend to demonstrate higher levels than boys, showing a greater understanding of their emotions and thoughts. On the other hand, boys may struggle with self-awareness, often showing more aggressive and impulsive behaviors. These gender differences in self-awareness have essential educational implications for the socioemotional development of preschoolers. The aim of this study is to investigate the gender differences in the relationship between children’s self-representation and socioemotional performance-based outcomes, which are quantifiable and objective measures of their abilities and behaviors. The Berkeley Puppet Interview (BPI) has been widely used in the scientific literature to assess various aspects of preschool children’s lives, including children’s self-representation. The BPI is a semi-structured interview designed to measure young children’s perceptions of their family environment, school context, relationships with teachers, social skills and behaviors, and internalizing and externalizing symptomatology. It has been utilized to assess children’s self-reports of Big Five personality traits [31], maternal psychological control and hostility [32], conduct problems, depression, inattention, and internalizing symptoms [33,34,35], as well as peer victimization [36]. Additionally, the BPI has been employed to evaluate children’s views of their academic, social, and emotional lives [37] and to measure their self-reports of temperament [38]. Furthermore, it has been used in studies to observe prosocial behavior and social initiative [39]. The indirect and playful questioning via the hand puppet is thought to reveal not only consciously accessible but also implicitly operating or latent aspects of the self [40]. Moreover, the BPI has been utilized to assess the effectiveness of puppet shows and storytelling methods on behavioral problems among preschool children [41].
To our knowledge, no studies have employed the Berkeley Puppet Interview (BPI) to explore potential gender disparities in how preschool children perceive their socioemotional competencies compared to their performance in the same field. The present study explores how socioemotional performance-based outcomes, which provide measurable and objective indicators of children’s abilities and behaviors, are connected to their self-representation. Such an exploration is fundamental to shed light on the interplay between external achievements and internal beliefs [42,43]. Through a comprehensive analysis of the associations between observed performance and children’s perceptions of their own socioemotional aptitudes, we aim to deepen the understanding of how preschool children perceive, internalize, and manifest these skills within social contexts.

2. Materials and Methods

This observational study aimed to evaluate the performance and self-awareness of socioemotional competencies in a cohort of preschool children. Participation in this research was voluntary, and data were collected anonymously. Signed informed consent was obtained from the parents. The study was approved by the Ethical Committee of the Free University of Bolzano-Bozen (protocol number UPRIS_Cod_2021-06), and it was conducted in accordance with the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki.
The assessment procedure was thoroughly explained to the children beforehand, and they were asked to give their individual verbal consent. Children were recruited from kindergartens located in South Tyrol and Veneto, two northern regions of Italy; all children participated in the assessment phase. The selection criteria for data inclusion were based on language proficiency, specifically focusing on those who were fluent in Italian to ensure the reliability of the test results.
A total of 145 preschool children (M = 67, F = 78) aged between 3 and 5 (M = 4.39; SD = 0.680) were considered for the analyses. Each child was assessed using the Test of Emotion Comprehension (TEC) [44] and the Berkeley Puppet Interview (BPI) [45]. Trained researchers administered the TEC and the BPI in a quiet room at kindergartens; the administration process usually took about 45 min for both and was carried out through a tablet equipped with an interactive interface. This innovative assessment method made the process more engaging and accessible for children.
The TEC is an assessment tool that evaluates the understanding of emotions in children aged three to eleven. It consists of nine components organized into three latent dimensions: nature (which includes recognition of basic emotions and understanding of mixed emotions), causes (including external causes, remainders, desires, beliefs, and moral values), and expression regulation. TEC is designed in both male and female versions and consists of 23 stimuli. Each stimulus involves a cartoon scenario and is followed by four possible emotional outcomes depicted through facial expressions. For each stimulus, the researcher reads a short story while the child observes the cartoon scenario. The child is then asked to indicate the appropriate facial expression, usually using non-verbal means. TEC’s scoring produces three different outcomes: (1) 9 components, with a maximum of 1 point for each component. Components I and II have five questions each; children receive one point if they answer at least four questions correctly. Components III and IX have two questions each, which must be answered correctly to receive one point. The remaining components have one question each and are scored pass or fail; (2) 3 subscales, with a score ranging from 0 to 3, are calculated by adding the scores of the components belonging to that subscale. The external subscale includes the first three components, the mental subscale includes the following three components, and the reflective subscale includes the last three components. Each subscale is classified as passed or failed based on whether all the components are answered correctly; (3) Total score, determined by adding up the scores of all nine components that were answered correctly, ranging from 0 to 9. This score reflects the overall level of the child’s emotional understanding.
The BPI is a comprehensive assessment tool developed to evaluate emotional and behavioral problems, social functioning, and school performance in children from 4 to 8 years of age. Its purpose is to comprehensively understand the child’s self-representation, emotional well-being, and overall functioning across various domains of socio-relational competencies. Using puppet characters and engaging interview techniques, the BPI aims to gather valuable insights into the child’s social behaviors and relational understanding. The BPI consists of 19 items in which the two puppets make opposing statements (e.g., puppet 1: “I do not have many friends at school”, puppet 2: “I have many friends at school”), and for each item, the child is asked if feels more like puppet one or puppet two. The data obtained from the child’s responses to 19 different items can be used to determine their level of prosociality, hostility, victimization, and social rejection in terms of self-awareness. To obtain this information, the respective items selected by the child are summed up under each subscale. This analysis can provide a detailed understanding of the child’s awareness and experiences in social situations and can help identify areas for intervention or support.

3. Results

Analyses were carried out using Jamovi software 2.3.28 [46].
Concerning the TEC scores, no significant differences emerged with respect to age and gender, TEC descriptive results concerning the nine components, the subscales, and the total score are reported in Table 1.
Table 2 presents a summary of statistical measures for the four different BPI psychological dimensions: social rejection, hostility, victimization, and prosociality including data on the minimum and maximum scores, the mean, and the standard deviation for each dimension, providing insights into the central tendency and variability of the data. The normality of the data was assessed using the Shapiro–Wilk test, revealing significant deviations from normality across all variables: social rejection (W = 0.820, p < 0.001), hostility (W = 0.903, p < 0.001), victimization (W = 0.791, p < 0.001), and prosociality (W = 0.820, p < 0.001). Due to these results, non-parametric tests were employed for subsequent analyses.
To deepen the understanding of the latent dimension, a paired sample T-test was computed. Results show significant differences among the BPI subscales where a greater distance has been recorded between victimization and prosociality (t = −14.23, p < 0.001; Table 3). The gender difference exploration shows that male children report significantly higher scores in social rejection, victimization, and hostility subscales, while females’ scores are higher in the prosociality subscale. Results are reported in Table 4.
Following an extensive analysis of the descriptive statistics, we observed statistically significant disparities in children’s self-awareness with respect to their social skills and their gender. Specifically, notable differences emerged in how children perceived and expressed their socioemotional competencies based on their gender. To further explore these differences, a series of linear regression analyses were conducted, as detailed in Table 5. The analyses were structured using a stepwise approach: in Model 1, gender was set as the primary predictor, and in Model 2, the TEC total score was added as a second predictor. This approach aimed to distinguish whether gender alone or in combination with children’s socioemotional competencies (as measured by the TEC total score) could explain variations in their social self-awareness. The models were compared using changes in explained variance (ΔR2) to evaluate the additional contribution of the TEC total score. Across all BPI subscales (social rejection, hostility, victimization, and prosociality), a statistically significant increase in the proportion of variance explained when the TEC total score was included in the model (p < 0.05) has been observed. These findings underscore the importance of socioemotional competencies in predicting children’s social self-awareness beyond the influence of gender alone. For individual BPI subscales, we found nuanced patterns in how gender and TEC total scores interacted as predictors. In social rejection, male gender emerged as a significant predictor in Model 1, indicating that boys were more likely to experience social rejection. However, when the TEC total score was included in Model 2, the relationship became stronger, suggesting that socioemotional competencies amplify this association. In prosociality, a contrasting pattern emerged: female gender and higher TEC total scores were both significant predictors, highlighting that girls with strong socioemotional skills were more likely to engage in positive social behaviors.
Interestingly, for hostility and victimization, gender did not serve as a significant predictor in either model. Instead, a low TEC total score consistently predicted higher levels of hostility and victimization, emphasizing the critical role of socioemotional competence in mitigating these negative social outcomes. These results collectively highlight that while gender plays a role in certain social outcomes, socioemotional competencies (as captured by the TEC total score) are pivotal in explaining disparities in children’s social self-awareness and behaviors.

4. Discussion

This study explores connections between children’s performance outcomes and self-perceptions of socioemotional skills. Through a comprehensive analysis of associations between performance and self-representation, our results revealed no significant differences in age and gender across the sample in TEC scores, ensuring a balanced development of socioemotional skills in terms of performance. On the other hand, self-representation scores highlight a significant gender difference where males are higher in recognition of social rejection, hostility, and victimization, and females are higher in recognizing prosociality in their peers’ social interaction. This result is coherent in the light of the ”gender asymmetry” supported by the scientific literature about the early and gender-based onset of aggressive behaviors [47] and difficulties in controlling impulsive behaviors [48]. One possible explanation for this dynamic may lie in differences in executive functions (EFs), a set of cognitive processes that include working memory, cognitive flexibility, and inhibitory control. EFs develop at varying rates in boys and girls during early childhood, potentially shaping differences in social behavior and competencies. Studies have shown that girls often outperform boys in tasks that require EFs, particularly in attention and inhibitory control, which are critical for social interactions and prosocial behavior [49]. Accordingly, it seems that girls may have an advantage in regulating their behavior in social contexts [50]. Such cognitive advantages could lead to enhanced prosocial behaviors, as children with better executive functioning are more capable of understanding and responding to social cues effectively. According to our results and in line with previous findings in the scientific literature [51], no significant gender differences have emerged in social skills when evaluated, but rather in self-attribution of specific prosocial behaviors. This suggests that while cognitive differences exist, the expression of social competencies may be influenced by environmental factors and socialization processes that vary by gender and culture.
Leveraging socioemotional competence can significantly contribute to enhancing the efficiency of executive functioning. Findings of a comprehensive meta-analysis of 213 socioemotional learning (SEL) programs demonstrating the positive effects on students’ emotional and social competencies. Additionally, research indicates that a supportive environment, mindfulness- and yoga-based interventions can enhance preschoolers’ psychological well-being, contributing to a framework that promotes social and emotional skills through interventions tailored to address the specific needs of preschoolers, helping male children in managing impulsive behaviors and automatic behavioral responses [52,53,54,55].
In addition to children’s socioemotional competence in terms of performance, i.e., TEC scores in the case of the present study, which reveals a mean developmental level coherent with the guidelines of the scientific literature [56], our findings highlight variations among the BPI subscales when delving into the children’s representation of their social competencies. Specifically, the most noticeable contrast emerged between social rejection and prosociality, indicating a substantial disparity in these dimensions. This aligns with other findings, which reveal that while socioemotional competencies are similarly developed, the contextual pressures of gender norms can shape how these competencies are expressed and perceived socially [57]. Such a stark difference underscores the early and in-depth understanding, as well as the complexity of children’s social development and the importance of considering the multifaceted nature of their social competencies. Indeed, as the sense of self and related awareness arose, it became an essential tool to guide the socioemotional interpretation of social sharing [58]. As a meta-representation, self-awareness acts as a ground for developing emotional competence and regulatory skills, and the emergence of gender differences in self-representation regarding socioemotional competence can be explained by the increasing awareness of gender roles and expectations as children grow. As preschoolers begin to develop a sense of self, they start to internalize societal norms that associate certain emotional expressions and competencies with their gender [59]. Furthermore, studies have shown that boys and girls may experience different socialization processes associated with different parental and educational styles [60,61]. As children navigate their social environments, they may begin to adopt and express self-representations that reflect societal gender norms, leading to observable differences in how boys and girls perceive their socioemotional competence. This is supported by the findings of Winsler and colleagues, who noted that socioemotional skills and behavior problems could predict language acquisition among preschoolers, suggesting that self-perception in socioemotional contexts plays a critical role in broader developmental outcomes [62].
An improved self-understanding allows children to navigate their emotional experience more effectively, fostering greater emotional intelligence and the ability to regulate their behavioral responses among different kinds of social sharing and contexts. Indeed, self-representations of emotional competence and social sharing play a dual role in children’s development: they both shape and are shaped by one’s evolving ability to assess themselves within social settings. Accordingly, the relationship between self-regulation, emotion understanding, and aggressive behavior in preschoolers has been investigated, emphasizing their complex interplay [63,64].
In this respect, our results highlight that self-representation in preschoolers is influenced by both their gender and their socioemotional skills, which in turn are significant predictors of cognitive ability and classroom behavior among preschoolers [65]. Indeed, those competencies not only influence children’s interactions with peers but also shape their self-perception and confidence in social settings. Moreover, other studies emphasize that socioemotional skills developed through caregiver interactions are essential for children’s adjustment and self-regulation, which are closely tied to their self-representation [66,67]. Additionally, a longitudinal study conducted by Verschueren and colleagues (2001) provides evidence for the significant impact of socioemotional competence on children’s self-perceptions [68], while evidence from later developmental stages indicates that gender influences socioemotional distress, suggesting that boys and girls may internalize societal expectations in distinct ways, resulting in divergent self-representations [69].
In this perspective, tailored educational strategies are required when interacting with boys and girls in these early developmental years [70], and self-representation may represent the cornerstone to face such developmental challenges. Although self-awareness in children is a complex process influenced by various factors such as age and gender, research has shown that toddlers’ internal speech is linked to their awareness and self-regulatory skills, as well as the caregivers’ mind-mindedness [71,72]. Moreover, negative self-conceptions have been associated with psychological maladjustment in children, and considering that the development of self-awareness in children is a multifaceted process influenced by various internal and external factors, understanding the emergence and progression of self-awareness in children is crucial for promoting their psychological well-being and adaptive functioning [73]. This study acknowledges some limitations that warrant consideration. Specifically, it is recommended that future research adopt a longitudinal design to better understand the temporal progression and clarify the causal relationships among the variables examined. The cross-sectional nature of the data in this study does not allow for capturing the evolving dynamics of behaviors, attitudes, or experiences over time. Furthermore, the regression model employed in our analysis accounts for only a limited proportion of the variance, underscoring the need for further research to enhance the understanding of these phenomena and strengthen the robustness of the findings.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, the use of performance-based outcomes provides an objective and predictive assessment of the developmental stage of socioemotional skills. However, it is imperative to recognize the necessity of acknowledging gender and incorporating self-representation in tailoring educational programs to foster adaptive development and psychological well-being. While performance-based outcomes are commonly utilized to evaluate the level of competencies’ development, it is crucial to acknowledge their limitations in providing a comprehensive understanding of a child’s socioemotional growth. The implications of our findings are profound, suggesting that enhancing socioemotional learning through targeted interventions can foster adaptive developmental outcomes among children, particularly in early educational settings [61]. As a practical educational approach, educators can create supportive environments that nurture children’s abilities to navigate their social worlds effectively by focusing on the development of socioemotional and cognitive competencies, thereby promoting long-term well-being and accurate self-representation and self-identity [74]. Indeed, it is also essential to consider the multifaceted nature of socioemotional development, addressing the significant role of both cognitive and socio-cultural factors in shaping children’s self-perceptions and competencies. Ultimately, fostering a deeper understanding of these dynamics will be crucial for developing effective educational strategies to face the diverse needs of children in our increasingly complex social landscape [75].

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.B., L.T. and F.S.I.; methodology, L.T. and F.S.I.; investigation, L.T., F.S.I., A.A., G.P. and R.M.I.; supervision, A.B. and M.T.; data curation, F.S.I.; writing—original draft preparation, F.S.I.; writing—review and editing, L.T., A.B. and M.T.; funding acquisition, A.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Free University of Bolzano, grant number BW2092.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Ethics Committee of Free University of Bolzano, Faculty of Education (protocol code UPRIS_Cod_2021-06, approved on 30 June 2021).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study and/or their legal representative.

Data Availability Statement

Data are not available due to privacy issue.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Saarni, C. The Development of Emotional Competence; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  2. Garon, N.; Moore, C. Complex decision-making in early childhood. Brain Cogn. 2004, 55, 158–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Tegano, D.W.; Groves, M.M.; Catron, C.E. Early childhood teachers’playfulness and ambiguity tolerance: Essential elements of encouraging creative potential of children. J. Early Child. Teach. Educ. 1999, 20, 291–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Denham, S.A.; Bassett, H.H.; Thayer, S.K.; Mincic, M.S.; Sirotkin, Y.S.; Zinsser, K. Observing preschoolers’ social-emotional behavior: Structure, foundations, and prediction of early school success. J. Genet. Psychol. 2012, 173, 246–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Denham, S.A.; Blair, K.A.; DeMulder, E.; Levitas, J.; Sawyer, K.; Auerbach–Major, S.; Queenan, P. Preschool emotional competence: Pathway to social competence? Child Dev. 2003, 74, 238–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Warren, H.K.; Stifter, C.A. Maternal emotion-related socialization and preschoolers’ developing emotion self-awareness. Soc. Dev. 2008, 17, 239–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ştefan, C.A.; Avram, J.; Miclea, M. Children’s awareness concerning emotion regulation strategies: Effects of attachment status. Soc. Dev. 2017, 26, 694–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Zeytinoglu, S.; Calkins, S.D.; Leerkes, E.M. Autonomic profiles and self-regulation outcomes in early childhood. Dev. Sci. 2022, 25, e13215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Taylor, Z.E.; Eisenberg, N.; Spinrad, T.L.; Eggum, N.D.; Sulik, M.J. The relations of ego-resiliency and emotion socialization to the development of empathy and prosocial behavior across early childhood. Emotion 2013, 13, 822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Denham, S.A. Emotional Development in Young Children; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  11. Izard, C.E. Emotional intelligence or adaptive emotions? Emotion 2001, 1, 249–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Graziano, P.A.; Reavis, R.D.; Keane, S.P.; Calkins, S.D. The role of emotion regulation in children’s early academic success. J. Sch. Psychol. 2007, 45, 3–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Koltcheva, N.; Coelho, V. Social and Emotional Development for Children Aged 0 to 7 Years Old: European Countries Overviews Compendium; EU-SELF Project; New Bulgarian University Press: Sofia, Bulgária, 2022; ISBN 978-619-233-213-6. [Google Scholar]
  14. United Nations. (n.d.). The 17 goals: Sustainable development knowledge platform. United Nations. Available online: https://sdgs.un.org/ (accessed on 1 November 2024).
  15. Cavioni, V.; Broli, L.; Grazzani, I. Bridging the SEL CASEL Framework with European educational policies and assessment approaches. Int. J. Emot. Educ. 2024, 16, 6–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Boden, M.T.; Thompson, R.J. Facets of emotional awareness and associations with emotion regulation and depression. Emotion 2015, 15, 399–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Eisenberg, N. Altruistic Emotion, Cognition, and Behavior (PLE: Emotion); Psychology Press: London, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  18. Salerni, N.; Caprin, C. Prosocial behavior in preschoolers: Effects of early socialization experiences with peers. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 840080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Denham, S.A.; Ferrier, D.E.; Howarth, G.Z.; Herndon, K.J.; Bassett, H.H. Key considerations in assessing young children’s emotional competence. In Social and Emotional Learning; Routledge: London, UK, 2020; pp. 27–45. [Google Scholar]
  20. Harter, S. The Self. In Handbook of Child Psychology: Vol. 3. Social, Emotional, and Personality Development; Eisenberg, N., Ed.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2006; pp. 505–570. [Google Scholar]
  21. Gong, Q.; Kramer, K.Z.; Tu, K.M. Fathers’ marital conflict and children’s socioemotional skills: A moderated-mediation model of conflict resolution and parenting. J. Fam. Psychol. 2023, 37, 1048–1059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Arteaga-Cedeño, W.L.; Carbonero-Martín, M.Á.; Martín-Antón, L.J.; Molinero-González, P. The sociodemographic-professional profile and emotional intelligence in infant and primary education teachers. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 9882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Salavera, C.; Supervía, P.U. Relationship between social skills and happiness: Differences by gender. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 7929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Madsen, E.B.; Væver, M.S.; Egmose, I.; Krogh, M.T.; Haase, T.W.; de Moor, M.H.M.; Karstoft, K.-I. Parental reflective functioning in first-time parents and associations with infant socioemotional development. J. Child Fam. Stud. 2023, 32, 2140–2152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Kamphorst, E.; Cantell, M.; Van Der Veer, G.; Minnaert, A.; Houwen, S. Emerging school readiness profiles: Motor skills matter for cognitive-and non-cognitive first grade school outcomes. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 759480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Quiñones-Camacho, L.E.; Davis, E.L. Children’s awareness of the context-appropriate nature of emotion regulation strategies across emotions. Cognition and Emotion 2019, 34, 977–985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Chaplin, T.M.; Aldao, A. Gender differences in emotion expression in children: A meta-analytic review. Psychol. Bull. 2013, 139, 735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Li, J.; Yang, M. Analysis of the educational environment in kindergartens for gender equality and preschoolers’ gender-role development. Creat. Educ. 2022, 13, 3981–3995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Laible, D. Does it matter if preschool children and mothers discuss positive vs. negative events during reminiscing? Links with mother-reported attachment, family emotional climate, and socioemotional development. Soc. Dev. 2011, 20, 394–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Hilliard, L.J.; Liben, L.S. Differing levels of gender salience in preschool classrooms: Effects on children’s gender attitudes and intergroup bias. Child Dev. 2010, 81, 1787–1798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Gerholm, T.; Kallioinen, P.; Tonér, S.; Frankenberg, S.; Kjällander, S.; Palmer, A.; Lenz-Taguchi, H. A randomized controlled trial to examine the effect of two teaching methods on preschool children’s language and communication, executive functions, socioemotional comprehension, and early math skills. BMC Psychol. 2019, 7, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Measelle, J.R.; John, O.P.; Ablow, J.C.; Cowan, P.A.; Cowan, C.P. Can children provide coherent, stable, and valid self-reports on the big five dimensions? A longitudinal study from ages 5 to 7. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2005, 89, 90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Morris, A.S.; Silk, J.S.; Steinberg, L.; Sessa, F.M.; Avenevoli, S.; Essex, M.J. Temperamental vulnerability and negative parenting as interacting predictors of child adjustment. J. Marriage Fam. 2002, 64, 461–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Arseneault, L.; Kim-Cohen, J.; Taylor, A.; Caspi, A.; Moffitt, T.E. Psychometric evaluation of 5-and 7-year-old children’s self-reports of conduct problems. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 2005, 33, 537–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Howland, M.A.; Sandman, C.A.; Glynn, L.M.; Crippen, C.; Davis, E.P. Fetal exposure to placental corticotropin-releasing hormone is associated with child self-reported internalizing symptoms. Psychoneuroendocrinology 2016, 67, 10–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Stone, L.L.; Otten, R.; Janssens, J.M.; Soenens, B.; Kuntsche, E.; Engels, R.C. Does parental psychological control relate to internalizing and externalizing problems in early childhood? an examination using the berkeley puppet interview. Int. J. Behav. Dev. 2013, 37, 309–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Perren, S.; Stadelmann, S.; von Klitzing, K. Child and family characteristics as risk factors for peer victimization in kindergarten. Schweiz. Z. Bild. 2009, 31, 13–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Measelle, J.R.; Ablow, J.C.; Cowan, P.A.; Cowan, C.P. Assessing young children’s views of their academic, social, and emotional lives: An evaluation of the self-perception scales of the berkeley puppet interview. Child Dev. 1998, 69, 1556–1576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Roth, J.H.; Dadds, M.R.; McAloon, J. Evaluation of a puppet interview to measure young children’s self-reports of temperament. Behav. Chang. 2004, 21, 37–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Huber, L.; Plötner, M.; Schmitz, J. Behavioral observation of prosocial behavior and social initiative is related to preschoolers’ psychopathological symptoms. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0225274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Verschueren, K.; Marcoen, A.; Schoefs, V. The internal working model of the self, attachment, and competence in five-year-olds. Child Dev. 1996, 67, 2493–2511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Aminimanesh, A.; Ghazavi, Z.; Mehrabi, T. Effectiveness of the puppet show and storytelling methods on children’s behavioral problems. Iran. J. Nurs. Midwifery Res. 2019, 24, 61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Denham, S.A. Children’s emotional competence, foundation of their success: Skills, outcomes, and support. Policies, Practices, and Qualifications in Early Childhood Education 2019. pp. 4–17, ISBN 978-619-91278-5-8. Available online: http://movup-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/MOV-UP-Conference-proceedings-v2.pdf#page=5 (accessed on 1 November 2024).
  44. Albanese, O.; Grazzani, I.; Molina, P.; Antoniotti, C.; Arati, L.; Farina, E.; Pons, F. Children’s emotion understanding: Preliminary data from the Italian validation project of Test of Emotion Comprehension (TEC). In Toward Emotional Competences; Aalborg University Press: Aalborg, Denmark, 2006; pp. 39–53. [Google Scholar]
  45. Ringoot, A.P.; Jansen, P.W.; Graaff, J.S.-D.; Measelle, J.R.; van der Ende, J.; Raat, H.; Jaddoe, V.W.V.; Hofman, A.; Verhulst, F.C.; Tiemeier, H. Young children’s self-reported emotional, behavioral, and peer problems: The Berkeley Puppet Interview. Psychol. Assess. 2013, 25, 1273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. The Jamovi Project, 2022; Version 2.3; R Core Team, 2021. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; Version 4.1. Available online: https://www.r-project.org/ (accessed on 1 November 2024).
  47. Farrington, D.P.; Coid, J.W. (Eds.) Early Prevention of Adult Antisocial Behaviour; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  48. Perry, K.J.; Perhamus, G.R.; Memba, G.; Ostrov, J.M.; Murray-Close, D. A social–ecological model of preschoolers’ aggressive behavior: An exploratory analysis. Sch. Psychol. 2024, 39, 95–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Seesjärvi, E.; Puhakka, J.; Aronen, E.T.; Hering, A.; Zuber, S.; Merzon, L.; Kliegel, M.; Laine, M.; Salmi, J. Epeli: A novel virtual reality task for the assessment of goal-directed behavior in real-life contexts. Psychol. Res. 2022, 87, 1899–1916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Liu, S.; Md Hassan, N.; Chee Luen, L. Developmental trends of executive function in chinese preschool children. Int. J. Acad. Res. Progress. Educ. Dev. 2023, 12, 288–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Xiao, S.X.; Hashi, E.C.; Korous, K.M.; Eisenberg, N. Gender differences across multiple types of prosocial behavior in adolescence: A meta-analysis of the prosocial tendency measure-revised (ptm-r). J. Adolesc. 2019, 77, 41–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Badau, A.; Trifan, I.M. Promote Positive Behaviors in Preschoolers by Implementing an Innovative Educational Program for the Training and Development of Social and Emotional Skills (DeCo–SE). Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 14931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Durlak, J.A.; Weissberg, R.P.; Dymnicki, A.B.; Taylor, R.D.; Schellinger, K.B. The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Dev. 2011, 82, 405–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Courbet, O.; Daviot, Q.; Kalamarides, V.; Habib, M.; Castillo, M.C.; Villemonteix, T. Promoting psychological well-being in preschool children: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial of a mindfulness-and yoga-based socio-emotional learning intervention. Trials 2022, 23, 1050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Kaur, J.; Sharma, A. Establishing early foundations to promote emotional competence in preschool children. J. Appl. Soc. Sci. 2022, 16, 399–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Gülay Ogelman, H.; Güngör, H.; Körükçü, Ö; Erten Sarkaya, H. Examination of the relationship between technology use of 5–6 year-old children and their social skills and social status. Early Child Dev. Care 2018, 188, 168–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Bohnert, M.; Gracia, P. Does Digital Engagement Influence Child Mental and Socioemotional Well-Being? Evidence Across Two Irish Cohorts, 2007–2018. 2020. Available online: https://osf.io/kf4tz (accessed on 1 November 2024). [CrossRef]
  58. Denham, S.A.; Wyatt, T.M.; Bassett, H.H.; Echeverria, D.; Knox, S.S. Assessing social-emotional development in children from a longitudinal perspective. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2009, 63 (Suppl. S1), i37–i52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Sher-Censor, E.; Khafi, T.; Yates, T. Preschoolers’ self-regulation moderates relations between mothers’ representations and children’s adjustment to school. Dev. Psychol. 2016, 52, 1793–1804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Chae, J.; Lee, K. Impacts of korean fathers’ attachment and parenting behavior on their children’s social competence. Soc. Behav. Personal. Int. J. 2011, 39, 627–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Papadopoulou, K.; Tsermidou, L.; Dimitrakaki, C.; Agapidaki, E.; Oikonomidou, D.; Petanidou, D.; Tountas, Y.; Giannakopoulos, G. A qualitative study of early childhood educators’ beliefs and practices regarding children’s socioemotional development. Early Child Dev. Care 2014, 184, 1843–1860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Winsler, A.; Kim, Y.; Richard, E. Socio-emotional skills, behavior problems, and spanish competence predict the acquisition of english among english language learners in poverty. Dev. Psychol. 2014, 50, 2242–2254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Tangney, J.P.; Stuewig, J.; Mashek, D.J. What’s moral about the self-conscious emotions. In The Self-Conscious Emotions: Theory and Research; Guilford Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2007; pp. 21–23. [Google Scholar]
  64. Çelikel, B.; Çoban, A. Self-concept with cross-cultural perspective: 36–72-month-old preschool children in turkey and germany. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 821074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Garner, P.; Waajid, B. Emotion knowledge and self-regulation as predictors of preschoolers’ cognitive ability, classroom behavior, and social competence. J. Psychoeduc. Assess. 2012, 30, 330–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Nix, R.; Bierman, K.; Domitrovich, C.; Gill, S. Promoting children’s social-emotional skills in preschool can enhance academic and behavioral functioning in kindergarten: Findings from head start redi. Early Educ. Dev. 2013, 24, 1000–1019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Perry, N. Previously institutionalized toddlers’ social and emotional competence and kindergarten adjustment: Indirect effects through executive function. Dev. Psychol. 2023, 59, 2175–2188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Waters, T.E.; Camia, C.; Facompré, C.R.; Fivush, R. A meta-analytic examination of maternal reminiscing style: Elaboration, gender, and children’s cognitive development. Psychol. Bull. 2019, 145, 1082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. King, T.L.; Scovelle, A.J.; Meehl, A.; Milner, A.J.; Priest, N. Gender stereotypes and biases in early childhood: A systematic review. Australas. J. Early Child. 2021, 46, 112–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Verschueren, K.; Buyck, P.; Marcoen, A. Self-representations and socioemotional competence in young children: A 3-year longitudinal study. Dev. Psychol. 2001, 37, 126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Liu, Q.; Huang, J.; Caldwell, M.P.; Cheung, S.K.; Cheung, H.; Siu, T.S.C. Gendered pathways to socioemotional competencies in very young children. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 6360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  72. Meins, E. Sensitive attunement to infants’ internal states: Operationalizing the construct of mind-mindedness. Attach. Hum. Dev. 2016, 15, 524–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Manfra, L.; Winsler, A. Preschool children’s awareness of private speech. Int. J. Behav. Dev. 2006, 30, 537–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Mahoney, J.L.; Weissberg, R.P.; Greenberg, M.T.; Dusenbury, L.; Jagers, R.J.; Niemi, K.; Schlinger, M.; Schlund, J.; Shriver, T.P.; VanAusdal, K.; et al. Systemic social and emotional learning: Promoting educational success for all preschool to high school students. Am. Psychol. 2021, 76, 1128–1142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Silva, I.; Cunha-Saraiva, F.; Silvestre, S. Acceptability and effectiveness of the “education in action—aball1” intervention program in primary school-aged children. Front. Psychol. 2023, 14, 1163489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Descriptive statistics of the three different scores obtained from TEC, i.e., the nine components, the subscales, and the total score. Data show the minimum and maximum values obtained for each category, the related means, and the standard deviation.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics of the three different scores obtained from TEC, i.e., the nine components, the subscales, and the total score. Data show the minimum and maximum values obtained for each category, the related means, and the standard deviation.
NMinimumMaximumMeanStd. Deviation
Component 1: Recognition145153.961.10
Component 2: External cause145042.561.19
Component 3: Desire145021.360.796
Component 4: Beliefs145010.3520.479
Component 5: Memory145010.5240.501
Component 6: Regulation145010.2900.455
Component 7: Hiding145010.5030.502
Component 8: Mixed emotions145010.1720.379
Component 9: Moral145010.5100.502
Subscale_External145132.740.511
Subscale_Mental145031.170.866
Subscale_Reflective145031.190.790
Total score145083.941.75
Table 2. Descriptive statistics related to the four different subscales obtained from BPI, namely social rejection, hostility, victimization, and prosociality. Data show the minimum and maximum values obtained for each subscale, the related means, and the standard deviation.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics related to the four different subscales obtained from BPI, namely social rejection, hostility, victimization, and prosociality. Data show the minimum and maximum values obtained for each subscale, the related means, and the standard deviation.
NMinimumMaximumMeanStd. Deviation
Social Rejection145051.131.25
Hostility145051.741.42
Victimization145030.8000.910
Prosociality145042.931.22
Table 3. Comparative analysis of subscales mean scores using Students’ t-Test in BPI (N = 145).
Table 3. Comparative analysis of subscales mean scores using Students’ t-Test in BPI (N = 145).
t-Valuedfp
Social RejectionHostility−4.38144<0.001
Victimization3.111440.002
Psociality−10.10144<0.001
HostilityVictimization7.57144<0.001
Prosociality−6.56144<0.001
VictimizationProsociality−14.23144<0.001
Note. Ha μ Measure 1 − Measure 2 ≠ 0.
Table 4. Student’s t-tests, degrees of freedom (df), p-values (p), mean differences, and standard error (SE) of differences for each BPI subscale (social rejection, hostility, victimization, and prosociality). Group descriptives for each dimension, including means, medians, standard deviations (SD), and standard errors (SE), are provided for both male and female groups. Levene’s test was found to be significant for social rejection, suggesting a violation of the assumption of equal variances. Levene’s test is significant (p < 0.05), suggesting a violation of the assumption of equal variances (*).
Table 4. Student’s t-tests, degrees of freedom (df), p-values (p), mean differences, and standard error (SE) of differences for each BPI subscale (social rejection, hostility, victimization, and prosociality). Group descriptives for each dimension, including means, medians, standard deviations (SD), and standard errors (SE), are provided for both male and female groups. Levene’s test was found to be significant for social rejection, suggesting a violation of the assumption of equal variances. Levene’s test is significant (p < 0.05), suggesting a violation of the assumption of equal variances (*).
Independent Sample T-TestStatistic (Student’s t)dfpMean DifferenceSE Difference
Social Rejection2889 *1430.0040.5890.204
Hostility0.4781430.6330.1140.238
Victimization1.3591430.1760.2050.151
Prosociality−2.5511430.012−0.5100.200
Group Descriptives
GroupMeanSDSE
Social RejectionMale1.4481.4590.178
Female0.8590.9770.111
HostilityMale1.8061.5400.188
Female1.6921.3220.150
VictimizationMale0.9100.9330.114
Female0.7050.8840.100
ProsocialityMale2.6571.2860.157
Female3.1671.1210.127
Table 5. Linear regression analysis of relationship between gender (Model 1) and TEC total score (Model 2) as independent variables and BPI subscales as dependent variables (N = 145).
Table 5. Linear regression analysis of relationship between gender (Model 1) and TEC total score (Model 2) as independent variables and BPI subscales as dependent variables (N = 145).
Model Fit Measures
Social Rejection RR2
Gender0.2350.0552
TEC Total Score
Gender		0.3300.1092
Hostility
Gender0.04000.00160
TEC Total Score
Gender		0.37680.14196
Victimization
Gender0.1130.0127
TEC Total Score
Gender		0.2720.0742
Prosociality
Gender0.2090.0435
TEC Total Score
Gender		0.4020.1618
Model Comparisons
ComparisonΔR2Fdf1df2p
Model 1Model 2
Social RejectionGenderTEC Total Score
Gender		0.05418.6211420.004
HostilityGenderTEC Total Score
Gender		0.14023.21142<0.001
VictimizationGenderTEC Total Score
Gender		0.06159.4311420.003
ProsocialityGenderTEC Total Score
Gender		0.11820.01142<0.001
Model 1 Coefficients
PredictorEstimateSEtp
Social Rejection
Intercept2.0370.3296.18<0.001
Gender−0.5890.204−2.890.004
Hostility
Intercept1.9200.3844.996<0.001
Gender−0.1140.238−0.4780.633
Victimization
Intercept1.1160.2444.57<0.001
Gender−0.2050.151−1.360.176
Prosociality
Intercept2.1470.3236.64<0.001
Gender0.5100.2002.550.012
Model 2 Coefficients
PredictorEstimateSEtp
Social Rejection
Intercept2.7000.39266.88<0.001
Gender−0.5920.1986−2.980.003
TEC Total Score−0.1670.0569−2.940.004
Hostility
Intercept3.1320.43717.166<0.001
Gender−0.1200.2211−0.5410.590
TEC Total Score−0.3050.0633−4.820<0.001
Victimization
Intercept1.6290.29035.61<0.001
Gender−0.2080.1468−1.420.159
TEC Total Score−0.1290.0420−3.070.003
Prosociality
Intercept1.1900.37133.210.002
Gender0.5150.18782.740.007
TEC Total Score0.2410.05384.48<0.001
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sangiuliano Intra, F.; Taverna, L.; Incardona, R.M.; Tremolada, M.; Amadori, A.; Prestera, G.; Brighi, A. Performance and Self-Representation of Socioemotional Competencies in Preschool Children: Implication for Adaptive Developmental Outcome. Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 1360. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14121360

AMA Style

Sangiuliano Intra F, Taverna L, Incardona RM, Tremolada M, Amadori A, Prestera G, Brighi A. Performance and Self-Representation of Socioemotional Competencies in Preschool Children: Implication for Adaptive Developmental Outcome. Education Sciences. 2024; 14(12):1360. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14121360

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sangiuliano Intra, Francesca, Livia Taverna, Roberta Maria Incardona, Marta Tremolada, Alberto Amadori, Giulia Prestera, and Antonella Brighi. 2024. "Performance and Self-Representation of Socioemotional Competencies in Preschool Children: Implication for Adaptive Developmental Outcome" Education Sciences 14, no. 12: 1360. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14121360

APA Style

Sangiuliano Intra, F., Taverna, L., Incardona, R. M., Tremolada, M., Amadori, A., Prestera, G., & Brighi, A. (2024). Performance and Self-Representation of Socioemotional Competencies in Preschool Children: Implication for Adaptive Developmental Outcome. Education Sciences, 14(12), 1360. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14121360

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop